Due the dissolution of Parliament, Bruce George is no longer the MP for the Walsall South Constituency.

In conjunction with Parliamentary Protocol this site must carry the following statement:

“This Website was established while I was Member of Parliament. As Parliament has been dissolved there are no Members of Parliament until after the election on 06/05/2010″.

This website will remain in place as an archive of Bruce’s work as the former Member of Parliament for Walsall South for the foreseeable future.

Bruce George MP, Chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Skin yesterday announced his support for Julie Morgan MP’s Private Members Bill on Sunbed use. The bill aims to prevent under-18s from using sunbeds and is sponsored by a cross party group of MPs.

Bruce, as chairman of the APPG on Skin, has for a number of years been campaigning for mandatory regulation of the sunbed industry and in 2008 a major report of the APPG Skin called for the government to ban under-18s using sunbeds. Bruce is therefore very happy to see a Private Members Bill introduced aiming to achieve this goal.

Speaking today Bruce said:

“I am pleased to announce my support for Julie Morgan’s bill. As Chairman of the All Party Group on Skin I have been campaigning on issues surrounding skin for quite a few years and in the last few years I have become quite concerned about the unregulated nature of sunbeds. In 2008 a report of our All Party Group called for government regulation of the industry to include a legally binding minimum age for sunbeds and I am pleased that Julie Morgan’s bill will seek to make this change.

Sunbeds can be extremely dangerous to children’s health and yet many under 18s seem to be using them on a regular basis. We must act to prevent young people having access to sunbeds. And I will be giving my full support to this Bill.”

Research commissioned by Cancer Research UK in 2008/09 found that more than a quarter of a million children have used sunbeds in the UK. Indeed the research found that in some areas (including Liverpool and Sunderland) sunbed usage was as high as 50 per cent among 15-17 year old girls. We have clear evidence that sunbed use increases the risk of developing skin cancer. In addition, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has re-classified sunbeds into its highest cancer risk category, putting it alongside tobacco.

Bruce George MP today welcomed the government’s announcement of a new ambitious strategy aimed at tackling violence against women and girls. The new ‘Violence Against Women and Girls Strategy’ marks a greater focus by the government to prevent such violence from happening. As part of the strategy schools will include in personal, social, health and economic (PSHE) education lessons on preventing violence in relationships. This will be accompanied by a high profile marketing campaign.

Speaking today Bruce said:

“I am glad to see that the government is taking a more joined up approach to this vitally important issue. It is extremely important that all the relevant bodies, whether local councils, the NHS, the police and government departments work together to see that violence is prevented as much as possible, and that where it does occur there are sufficient specialist services in place to help and support the victims.

As part of this new strategy the government will be encouraging local authorities to appoint a Violence Against Women and Girls champion at Director level, and I would encourage Walsall Council to follow government advice and appoint someone as soon as possible to better ensure Walsall can provide excellent services in this area.”

Bruce added:

“The Council’s record on domestic violence isn’t very good. For the last few years the resources allocated to Walsall Domestic Forum have been significantly reduced, forcing cuts in services. I suppose the Council are currently considering next year’s budget for the Forum and will be thinking about cutting it again – it was halved last year! If you look at the statistics it is pretty obvious that during the current economic crisis the number of cases of violence within the family has been on the increase and the Christmas and New Year holiday will also see an increase in cases if previous years are any indicator. So now is not the time to be considering cutting funding. I just hope the Council will protect the very many vulnerable members of our town by enabling this excellent service to survive.”

Bruce George, former Chairman of the House of Commons Defence Committee, today welcomed the government’s decision to reinstate the funding for training in the Territorial Army. Bruce, who is currently co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Reserve Forces, had earlier this week tabled an Early Day Motion calling on the government to reconsider its initial decision to cut the funding by £20 million and suspend training for six months.

Furthermore on Monday, when the Armed Forces Minister raised the issue in the House, Bruce was one of a number of Labour backbenchers to urge the Government to rethink. In the debate he said:

“I am not known to be hostile to the Government on defence, but I am very concerned about the Territorial Army, knowing its importance. Three Honourable Members signed an Early Day motion that is very modest in its aspirations, not over-the-top.

What I would ask, despite having heard the explanation, is whether, even at this stage, such a small amount of money, which must be minuscule compared with the overall defence budget, can be looked at seriously again. Does this not send the wrong message? Are we not talking about the most effective element of our entire defence budget? Surely some other area could be plundered if necessary in the short term, instead of sending that erroneous, potentially damaging message.”

Bruce was therefore delighted to see the government had a change of heart today and announced that it had decided to maintain the TA training regime at its current levels through this financial year and that the funding for this would be ring fenced.

Bruce George, who has long campaigned on behalf of indigenous people throughout the world, is supporting a campaign by Survival International calling on the Government to ratify the ILO Convention 169. The Convention recognises their rights to remain in possession of their lands, and to be consulted about projects which would affect them.

By today signing EDM 1299 Bruce has joined with Survive in accepting that to ensure the survival of tribal and indigenous people their land rights must be recognised and protected.

Today’s act is just the latest example of Bruce’s past campaigning on behalf of indigenous and tribal peoples. Indeed Bruce has the distinction of having a debate in the Canadian House of Commons in the early 1980s to have him thrown out of Canada for his campaigning on behalf of the native people of Canada, the Inuit’s (formerly referred to as Eskimo’s).

Speaking about the debate Bruce said today:

“Fortunately I was already back in London by the time of the debate, but I told the journalist who informed me of the short debate that I would happily return to Canada so they could throw me out!”

Bruce George MP today welcomed the publication of a report by the Joint Committee on the Draft Bribery Bill, a committee which he was a member of. In its report published today, Tuesday 28 July 2009, Bruce and the other Committee members strongly welcomed the draft Bill as an important step forward in tackling corruption and fulfilling the United Kingdom’s international obligations in this area. This follows years of criticism being levelled against the current law of bribery by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, among others. The proposals replace the draft Corruption Bill that was published by the Government in 2003 but which failed to win support.

Speaking about the Bill, Bruce said:

“Bribery is a serious problem around the world, with the World Bank estimating that around a trillion dollars’ worth of bribes are paid each year. There is no room for bribery, which distorts free competition, undermines society and the rule of law, and worsens the living conditions of the poorest in society.

“The draft Bill that we have considered will not solve all the challenges we face in terms of corruption, either in the UK or internationally, but as a Committee we are convinced that the Draft Bill will, with some amendments that we have recommended in our report, be an important step forward that will help the Government and the business community to build upon international efforts to confront the problem of bribery.”

The Committee particularly welcomes the new offence that targets companies and partnerships that fail to prevent bribes being paid on their behalf, saying that “the current law has proven wholly ineffective and in need of reform.” However, the Committee remains concerned about the draft Bill’s focus on whether a “responsible person” was negligent, rather than on the collective failure of the company to ensure that adequate anti-bribery procedures were in place, fearing that this would introduce a narrow and complex solution to a pressing problem. The Committee recommends stiffening the offence by making a company or partnership “strictly liable” for any bribe paid by a person performing services on its behalf, except where the organisation proves that adequate anti-bribery procedures were in place. The Committee says this would not be unfair on the organisation, given that it is well placed to demonstrate the adequacy of its anti-bribery procedures. This would also bring the criminal law into line with other leading jurisdictions where, to date, a tougher approach has been taken on corporate criminal liability.

Subject to a number of amendments being made, the Committee endorses the main criminal offences that are proposed by the draft Bill, including a discrete offence for the bribery of foreign public officials. The Committee also endorses the substantial penalties that are available under the Bill, including the power to impose unlimited fines on companies and a maximum ten year sentence of imprisonment for individuals, saying the Bill “must have teeth to be effective”. It calls on the Government, however, to address the injustice that is risked by debarring companies from entering public contracts on an automatic and perpetual basis, which it says undermines the effectiveness of the draft Bill.

On parliamentary privilege, the Committee says that this complex issue should not be addressed “piecemeal” through different Bills, such as the Draft Bribery Bill and the Parliamentary Standards Bill (now the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009). The Committee recommends that clause 15 of the Draft Bribery Bill, which deals with this issue, should be deleted, as the analogous provisions were from Parliamentary Standards Bill. This issue should only be addressed in future as part of a comprehensive Bill specifically on Parliamentary Privilege.

The Committee also considers that clauses 13 and 14, which would “extend the security services’ powers to contravene the criminal law” should be deleted, saying the Bill is not the appropriate place for such a measure. The Committee heard “no persuasive evidence that the domestic intelligence agencies needed an authorisation to bribe”, and also questions whether such proposals would anyway be compliant with the UK’s international obligations.

The Joint Committee, including members of both Houses of Parliament, was set up specifically to scrutinise the Draft Bill. The Committee’s report – published after five weeks of oral evidence – includes recommendations on how the Government should amend the Bill before it is introduced into Parliament.

Since my last column the House of Commons has elected a new Speaker of the House. In the end there were ten candidates including my Walsall colleague Richard Shepherd. This was the first time that a Speaker of the House has been elected by secret ballot and the procedure took a bit of getting used to. To be successfully elected a candidate had to achieve more than 50% of the vote. Because of the large number of candidates with this election it took three rounds before we had a winner. It was a lengthy process with each round taking anywhere up to two hours. Conservative MP John Bercow was eventually elected the 157th Speaker of the House of Commons, winning 322 of the 593 votes cast. It is my hope that the new Speaker, combined with the range of changes made to the expenses system, will help to restore the public’s trust in Parliament that has been so damaged of late.

In Britain we are rightly proud of our history and the heritage that goes with it. Unfortunately much of our rich heritage, both nationally and locally, has disappeared through the neglect of previous governments. However this generation is equally to blame. According to recent figures 1 in 7 listed buildings are at risk through neglect and decay. In Walsall, Great Barr Hall has been allowed to progressively deteriorate over the years and it is now in such poor condition that English Heritage has included it in their annual Heritage at Risk Register. Whilst English Heritage has been able to invest over £65m in the last 10 years to tackle this situation we still need to do more to save our shared history and heritage. Some might say a recession is not the time to tackle such a problem, but it’s been ignored for too long and action needs to be taken before it’s too late.

I’ve just got back from Albania where I have been observing their parliamentary elections with the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. Over the years I have developed an enormous interest in helping to establish and sustain democratic governments throughout the world. Last week my wife, knowing my keen interest in democracy, elections and good governance, booked tickets for us to go and see a new play at the National Theatre called, you guessed it, “The Observer.” Ironically I was unable to see the play because I would be undertaking election observation work for real! It took some time before she forgave me, but she took a friend in my place.

As virtually everyone in the UK and tens of millions abroad know, the last few weeks of seemingly incessant media stories, revelations, denials, apologies and resignations relating to MPs’ expenses have been deeply damaging to the reputation of both individual Members of Parliament and to the institution as a whole.

Clearly some MPs have trespassed well beyond what the rules laid down in the now famous or infamous “Green Book” and undoubtedly will suffer the consequences possibly in the form of prosecution. There are those who have been, to put it politely, “creative” in their claims then they too having been exposed will face the wrath of the public. However, there are those who have operated completely within the rules and the spirit of the rules but such is public opinion that all the different categories of claimants have been lumped into one - the guilty with the not guilty. I hope you will feel that I fall into this latter category and that I have acted at all times totally within both the rules and the spirit of the rules. These rules may be read on the House of Commons website under the heading, Department of Finance and Administration. The latest edition of the Green Book, published in March 2009, has already been rendered obsolete as a result of the current crisis and new rules are currently the subject of urgent and intense consideration. My claims for the last four years must be set against the respective Green Books that were in use for each of those years.

The claims made by Members of Parliament were acquired by the Daily Telegraph and have been published on a daily basis eagerly followed by the rest of the media who did not pay for the privilege of this leaked document. The rest of the media and, you, the members of the public will be able to access all MPs’ claims in the next few weeks. As I have always wished to be transparent, I invited the Walsall Advertiser and the Express and Star to visit my home and view all the claims I have submitted in the last fours years. This was an attempt to show I have nothing to hide. The journalists were able to question me over a long period if they had any queries.

For your information, I am attaching my detailed expenses and you will note that I am regularly in the low end of claims. My overall ranking for 2007/8 was 532nd out of 645 MPs; for 2006/07 I was 498th out of 645 MPs; and for 2004/05 I was 468th out of 659 MPs. (No rankings were done for 2005/06 since an election took place in 2005).

I accept full responsibility for the claims I have made. Because of the way the system works, my claim-related bills, as all other MPs’, are paid initially out of our personal accounts and then we seek reimbursement from the Fees Office. Regular large items of expenditure, such as my constituency office rent, are paid directly from the Fees Office. The leasing arrangements and the rent paid for my constituency office have been officially validated. Staff salaries are also paid directly from the Fees Office. Some newspapers when they publish MPs’ salaries add our staff salaries on top. This is grossly erroneous.

I have an accountant, as permissible in the rules, who helps to complete my annual tax return. I use him because he has specialist knowledge of Parliamentary allowances and expenses with regard to taxation. There has been a furore over certain members not paying tax on these charges. I wish to confirm that these accountancy charges are included in my tax returns as a “benefit-in-kind” and I pay the higher rate of tax on them.

In making my claims, I have at all times sought to be absolutely ethical. I believe a Member of Parliament should be full-time; I am certainly that - working 70+hours per week. I have no outside paid employment as many other Members of Parliament have. I employ no member of my family either in Walsall, London or anywhere else.

In making my claims, I apply the following principles:-

1. Is the entitlement laid down in the Green Book?
2. If allowable, is the claim fair and reasonable?
3. Having established that a claim is allowable, I also ask myself if it is ethical and right to make a claim.
4. If all of the above criteria have been met, though the cost nevertheless seems high, I pay what I consider to be the excess out of my own pocket. I have consistently claimed far less than the maximum permissible amounts as is evident from the attached document.

As you will note from the attached document, claims fall under a variety of headings.

Incidental Expenses Provision (IEP) - these are for the costs of running and servicing my constituency office in Bridge Street and my House of Commons office. These claims cover my constituency office rent (again paid direct from the House of Commons), constituency office telephone, fax and Internet connection, office supplies for both that office and my House of Commons office, my mobile phone and associated costs. I have not claimed for anything that could be construed in any way as superfluous or personal or for any of the items that have been highlighted in the press, such as digital cameras, office television sets, white goods and so forth. I have looked with amazement and some anger at what some of my colleagues have claimed but it should be remembered that some, but not all, of the worst excesses were rejected by the Fees Office.

In terms of the much derided Additional Costs or Second Home Allowance (ACA), I would make the following points. I have a second home in London, which in light of the 120 mile distance between Walsall and London, is absolutely essential. I paid for roughly two thirds of this house myself. My endowment mortgage matured in November 2007 and when I cleared the mortgage, I ceased to make any mortgage interest claims against my ACA. I would stress that far from seeking to maximise my mortgage interest claims, I sought to reduce them whenever possible. I have never “flipped”, i.e. changed the designation of my main and second homes, nor sought to move up the property ladder in London in order to maximise my claims.

My ACA claims will show that I have claimed for the running costs of my second home, mortgage interest up to November 2007, council tax, utilities, cleaning, insurance, telephone, security, service, maintenance and repairs, some carpets and food. I have considered that maintenance costs were the most necessary and ethical costs of all. Some of these maintenance costs have been expensive. For example, pipe work and radiator costs following a major leak, boiler and some redecoration. These types of costs are considerably higher in London than in Walsall or elsewhere in the country. I have always sought advice from the Fees Office in making these claims. When my second home was redecorated in 2007, I took the view that I should only claim for the cost of the space of a one bedroom flat on the basis that this is all the space an MP needs in London. This is evidenced on the invoice for this work. I only claimed for a portion of the wallpaper, paying the majority of it myself, even though I could have claimed for all of it and I paid personally for the associated costs of this decoration, such as new blinds. I did claim for an office chair, costing £97, which I use to do Parliamentary and constituency work. It will be noted that I have not claimed for furniture, televisions or appliances. I have also not claimed for anything that I feel could be construed as an “improvement” to our home. For instance, when we had a wooden floor installed some years ago, I paid for it personally. I do not have a gardener in London.

Other allowances are less in the spotlight in this current furore but they are nevertheless important to highlight since they, like all other allowances, are being paid for out of the public purse. One such allowance is the “Communications Allowance” which most Members use to produce a glossy leaflet advertising the work that they do. Frankly, I feel that my record and work can be expressed through the usual media and other channels, such as talking to people around town, in my weekly surgeries and through regular communication with my constituents. Therefore, the only use I make of this allowance is a small amount spent on advertising my weekly surgeries and contact details in certain local newspapers such as the Walsall Advertiser, the Express and Star, the Chronicle and the Great Barr Observer. I am not criticising other Members of Parliament for using this allowance to the full. Each MP has her/his method of working.

Another allowance is the travel allowance between Walsall and London and journeys around Walsall. My main home has always been in the constituency I am proud to represent and I travel home almost every week except when I am abroad on official Parliamentary business. My wife also travels almost every week between Walsall and London. She is allowed 15 return journeys each year when she travels separately from me, but she probably makes more like 45 return journeys. We therefore claim for her 15 allowable journeys and we pay personally for the other 30 or so. There is also an allowance for a Member of Parliament to make up to three visits per year to other European Parliaments, Governments and institutions if it is consistent with the Member’s parliamentary work and I normally make one such journey each year. However, most years I have not utilised this provision.

I am more than prepared to discuss these or other issues with any constituent who seeks further elaboration. I hope you do not think I am being overly defensive, but I despair of having my full defence against any accusations being subject to how certain media outlets seek to portray them, especially in this current near-frenzied atmosphere of hostility to Members of Parliament. Some MPs clearly deserve the hugely negative publicity they are receiving which has led to many announcing their premature retirements. Some may well end up in court. However, I hope that I have shown to the press and written here will assure my constituents that I have at all times behaved honourably, ethically and acted not only within the rules but also within the full spirit of the rules.

This public outcry cannot go on indefinitely. I am not aware of the measures that either the Conservative or Liberal Democrat parties are undertaking to independently reform the system but my own party has already embarked on reforms to help restore faith in the body politic. Set out below is a brief summary of some of the measures the Labour Party and the Government has taken and implemented to help restore public confidence. I hope there can be cross Party agreement and that the public will accept that wrongs are being righted. If we are not successful in this I fear for the future of our Parliamentary democracy which, with all its faults, remains one of the best in the world but reform there will be and it will go far beyond simply resolving the problem of MPs’ expenses.

The Labour Party has established an internal party committee to investigate any Labour MP where serious allegations have been made. I must point out however, that although the public is demanding heads, punishment has to follow “due process” by which I mean people having the right to defend their actions even though evidence appears that they may have no defence whatsoever. This committee has already announced that four sitting Labour MPs’ will be barred from standing at the next election. To rebuild public trust we need to reassure the electorate that we are acting properly in the present and renewal of people’s faith in politics for the future.

To rebuild public trust in Parliament and MPs the allowance system has to be thoroughly reformed. The Government has asked Parliament to stop claims for furniture and fittings and has banned outer London MPs from claiming the second home allowance. For the future, we need more fundamental change. This is why the Government has asked the Committee for Standards in Public Life to conduct an inquiry into Parliamentary Expenses and to suggest a programme of substantial reform. The Government has moved quickly to reform the system immediately and the committee will consider a sustainable long term solution that the public can have trust in.

The following article was published regarding my expenses by the Walsall Advertiser and with their kind permission it is reproduced below. (click image to enlarge)

Bruce today met with the Prime Minister of Georgia Nikoloz Gilauri. Bruce, who is chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Georgia, discussed with the Prime Minister recent events in Georgia including the conflict with Russia and their ongoing program of political reform.

Bruce has been very supportive of Georgia in recent years having participated in a number of election observation missions to the country. Since the Rose Revolution he has been active in supporting good governance programs within the country.

Bruce George MP today joined British Olympic swimmer Mark Foster to welcome the launch of free swimming today. As a result of government funding Walsall Council will open up its swimming pools for free for people aged 60 and over and [16 and under as well.

Four out of every five local councils in England – almost 300 - have signed up to provide free swimming for over 60s, with more than 200 councils offering it too for young people.

The £140 million Government initiative was announced last June, – delivering on a Government promise to help get two million people more active by the time London hosts the Olympics and Paralympics in 2012.

Bruce George MP said,

“It is great to see the national launch of Free Swimming today. I am happy to see that Walsall Council has backed the scheme to offer free swimming to people over 60 and under 16. This scheme will provide a fun and now accessible means of keeping fit and active.”

Sectretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport said:

“Today is the official launch of free swimming and a landmark moment as we look to build a healthier and more active nation. The take-up of this scheme has exceeded all expectations with over 81% of councils taking part. Thanks to this Government’s £140m investment millions of people in the UK will be able to swim for free which will be a boon for older people, children – and of course their mums and dads. It will also ensure that local pools are given a new lease of life in the heart of their communities. It is our hope that this is just the beginning and that in time free swimming becomes the norm across the country.”

Bruce George yesterday hosted a reception in Parliament for the Staffordshire Regiment, the Worcester and Foresters Regiment and the Cheshire Regiment, which combined form the recently created Mercian Regiment.

Staffordshire soldiers have been praised for their dedication and commitment to the Armed Forces at a special parliamentary reception hosted by the Walsall South MP.

Bruce was joined by a number of other MPs who welcomed a small party of officers, soldiers and their wives of the new Mercian Regiment to Westminster last night. The regiment was officially launched amid some controversy in September of last year. Its creation followed the amalgamation of The Staffordshire Regiment, The Worcestershire and Sherwood Foresters Regiment, The 22nd Cheshire Regiment and TA Battalions from across the area.

Mr George told the party many MPs fought the merger tooth-and-nail. But he continued: “We have to face reality and soldiers know how to make the best of the situation presented to them. I am sure the merger is functioning properly.

He commended the soldiers’ sacrifices, adding: “We are exceedingly fortunate to have the men and women who are in the British forces. They are a very dedicated group of people and it’s an honour to welcome the Regiment to the House of Commons.”

“For a long, long time we have held a reception for The Staffordshire Regiment, we will continue to do this with the Mercian Regiment as long as I am able to maintain this tradition.”

Brigadier Andrew Sharpe, Deputy Colonel of The Mercian Regiment, said: “It is extremely important for us that the people who represent our families and our soldiers stay in touch.”

Bruce George, MP for Walsall South, last week organised a meeting of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Private Security which considered the growing problem of Cash and Valuables in Transit crime. CVIT attacks in the UK account for 76 per cent of all CVIT crime in Europe. Between £1.4 and £2bn is moved around the country on a daily basis, and during 2007, over £18m was lost due to criminal activity. The level of violence used in these attacks has increased dramatically, with weapon-related incidents rising sharply.

The meeting, held in the House of Commons, and attended by MPs and industry representatives, was addressed by Home Office Minister Vernon Coaker MP, Detective Chief Superintendent Stephen Moore from Merseyside Police Headquarters, Professor Gloria Laycock from the Jill Dando Institute for Crime Science (University College London), and David Dickinson from the British Security Industry Association.

Bruce George commented “As someone with a long term interest in the private security industry, I recognise the serious nature of cash-in-transit attacks. It is vital that Members of Parliament understand the issues and the difference they can make in working with local authorities and other organisations in their constituencies to highlight the risks faced by cash-in-transit couriers. This meeting sparked a healthy debate on the issues which I hope will be of benefit in raising awareness about the problem.”

Speaking after the event Vernon Coaker said “The Government, police, security industry, retailers and finance industry are working very hard to prevent and tackle Cash and Valuables in Transit crime. This is not victimless crime; it has a big impact on people’s lives, their livelihood, and their families.”

After the event Bruce also took the opportunity to discuss with Vernon Coaker ongoing concerns surrounding Domestic Violence and in particular the problems faced by the Walsall Domestic Violence forum, in particular relation to funding.

Mr. Bruce George (Walsall, South) (Lab): Thank you, Mr. Caton. I am sorry that I arrived late. I have only heard three and a half speeches and, frankly, I am delighted that I arrived as late as did. I would have preferred it if, with your permission, I could have spoken without having listened. I find what has been said quite incredible in many respects.

I say with no disrespect to the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) that, if the Labour party was in bed with an authoritarian party in a European institution, I would wonder whether I wished to remain in it. I wonder why the Council of Europe was in Russia anyway, observing what were obviously going to be fraudulent elections on an epic scale. Although the hon. Gentleman did not find any fraud in Vladivostok—I am not sure, because I have not been there—there could very well have been fraud at 92,000 other polling stations, because there was fraud on a systemic, epic basis.

People do not cheat at elections on election day if they have fixed the results beforehand, because the odd election observer will be running around and because they will, of course, know how many observers are on aircraft heading for Vladivostok or anywhere else. Therefore, in the five or six polling stations that anyone could visit we could be certain that were fraud going to be committed it would not be done in front of even a sympathetic ear and eye.

I headed a short-term observation mission to Russia four years ago at the Duma elections and said in my speech, which irritated the Russians, that those elections fell well short of international standards. I will not bore hon. Members with the details of why we reached our conclusions. When I was asked, as president of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe Parliamentary Assembly, whether I would observe the following presidential elections, I said, “No, I’m not going to waste British taxpayers’ money, nor will the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, in attending not an election but a coronation.”

Mr. Wilshire: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. George: No, I have too little time in which to speak. I can speak to the hon. Gentleman afterwards.

It was obvious that the elections were going to be fraudulent. It offends me that an organisation for which I had the deepest respect—the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights—has been subject to a persistent and lengthy campaign of abuse in an attempt to diminish its competence and to eliminate it. I have chronicled this campaign in enormous detail, fortunately, in part, with the collusion of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly.

There was a systematic attempt to prevent proper election observation. Those responsible unilaterally deconstructed ODIHR’s methodology: they would not provide visas until a few days before the election and they would only allow 70 people to turn up. I said that there were 92,000 polling stations and, quite rightly, ODIHR refused to go under those conditions. But, of course, the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, followed by or alongside the Council of Europe, went out and observed what were obviously going to be appalling elections.

When it came to the presidential elections, ODIHR was again prevented from observing. The OSCE Parliamentary Assembly wisely and belatedly refused to dignify fraudulent elections with their attendance, but the Council of Europe went along on its own, with I do not know how many people. If all the people were as friendly towards the electoral process as the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, I am surprised that they produced a critical report.

I am not anti-Russian. I went through the cold war. I tried my best after the cold war to engage with the Russians. Yes, it was a corrupt society and, yes, Yeltsin was a flawed character, but his regime was followed by another. That regime is proceeding in such a way that alarm bells are starting to ring for me if not for others. Not only are its elections fraudulent but it is almost a single-party state.

Legitimate candidates were barred from standing. One was barred because he did not have enough signatures: 3 million signatures were whittled down to below the minimum. Legitimate candidates, including Garry Kasparov, were prevented from attending. Zhirinovsky’s party, which is not an opposition party, was also there. One other guy stood—he was very much in the Putin camp—and even the other parties are well in the pocket of the Administration. I cannot see why we should be so nice, when Russia is doing something like that on that one front alone.

The Council of Europe has about 3,000 non-governmental organisations accredited to it. What has happened to Russian NGOs? They have been deliberately targeted for destruction. What about international NGOs? Their leaders and characters working with them have been beaten up. What about the BBC World Service and the British Council? What about the overflying or near overflying of British airspace by Russian aircraft? What about all the things that Russia is doing?

Hon. Members may say, “Fine. This is an independent state. They have had one hell of a history.” We can smile and say, “We’ll help you. If democracy comes in 300 years, we’ll be around to help you over that period.” I take a rather different view. If the Russians are playing as they are, we should not go back into a cold war on our side, but we should not be supine. Some countries are being supine, first, because they are natural apologists for anybody and, secondly, because they do not like a fight and prefer the Americans and the British, largely, to do it for them, if necessary.

I am sympathetic towards Georgia and its aspirations. Hon. Members have said that we should not mess in Russia’s backyard. Does that mean that if a sovereign nation was once part of the Soviet Union and wants to get the hell out of it, we can do nothing to assist it because it is in Russia’s backyard? Ukraine may have been the origin of Russia, but it wishes to leave Russia’s orbit.

I headed the short-term observation missions to the rose and orange revolutions three or four years ago. Putin worked hard to support Yanukovych, who was a pro-Russian candidate against the democratic candidates and the party led by Yushchenko and Tymoshenko. If Ukraine wants to join NATO, despite the fact that it is adjacent to Russia, and most Ukrainians do not want to be part of Russia, that is its sovereign right. Why consider the Russian position, but not the Ukrainian position? Why consider Russian self-interest, but not Georgian self-interest?

The Georgians make the third largest contribution of soldiers to NATO’s operations, and more than many countries that are part of NATO. They have overcome their problems of authoritarianism, and they are a consolidating democracy, not a consolidated democracy. Exports to Russia have been barred, travel has been greatly restricted, and two areas that are juridically part of Georgia—South Ossetia and Abkhazia—are in essence under Russian control. Do we say to the Russians, “Ah, as this was part of your empire, we will allow you to stop other countries that want to get away from you, and to make them play by your rules in perpetuity.”? The Russians are trying to destroy Georgia, and I could spend ages telling the Chamber how the Georgians are becoming more democratic, but they are not yet there. I observed the elections, which were not as good as I had hoped, but to compare the Georgian elections to the Russian elections, and to compare some bad municipal elections in Birmingham and perhaps half a dozen other cities—we know who did the cheating—to elections elsewhere, as though that indicates that as our elections are fraudulent we should close our eyes to massive fraud in Russian elections, is disingenuous. That is as polite as I can be.

I am glad that I shall finish speaking soon, because I am becoming madder and madder about what I have heard. We must try to engage with the Russians, but not on our knees. The argument by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam) was like jumping into Dr. Who’s telephone kiosk and going back 25 years to listen to the Tribune-reading, left-wing John Horam trashing America and supporting Russia. If I had to make a decision on our security and where it lies in the next 10, 20 or 30 years, after Bush has gone, I would much prefer to have Europe closer to the United States than toadying up to the Russians.

I thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Caton. It is difficult for a Welshman to make a short speech. I should have congratulated the Committee on its excellent report. We must not become paranoid, but we know who our allies are. Putin is going along to see his mates in NATO. He knows who they are, and he knows who they put pressure on to be nice to Russia, and to keep Georgia out. We can all name those names. No doubt he will be given a warm welcome, and will be thanked for doing a wonderful job before going back.

The main beneficiary of the summit in Bucharest will be Russia, because it will have proven that the west has no bottle whatever and that it is prepared to lie down and to take any humiliation that is heaped upon it. Russia will find its allies all over the place and in many legislatures, and will have succeeded, with our collusion, in keeping Georgia out of NATO. That will be a good day’s work for the Russians, and a bad day’s work for those who acquiesce in that objective in foreign policy.
We must not be supine. We must work with our allies and defend our national interests, even if the Russians are doing us or our allies down. We must robustly defend our position. We must hope that the Russians will not substitute the red army for Gazprom and switch off oil and gas to our NATO and European allies. If I were asked whether they would do that, I would say, as a left-wing Labour Member of Parliament once said, “Why look into a crystal ball if the future can be read in a book?” Russia has done it. It has shut off oil and gas to Georgia and Ukraine, and even to its closest ally, Belarus. When will it be our turn?

I am not a cold warrior. I do not want the cold war to return, but nor do I want an attitude of indifference—or, rather, cravenness—to the Russians because they have a bad history. What about the bad Russian history that impinged on eastern and central Europe and other parts of the world? We must consider countries other than Russia, hope that they will become democratic, and help them as far as we can. But if they seek to damage our interests, I hope that this Government and any other Government will have the bottle to stand up for our interests and those of Europe and NATO.